Rifle Scopes Open center reticle opinions

[timelinex]

What are your guys a opinion on reticles that have an open center.

I thought it was a great idea that made complete sense. I got a Vortex razor 5-20 a bit ago and after using it a couple times, I'm not so sure....

I just feel like I'm 'floating' in the right area, as opposed to pointing right where I want. I think the combination of open reticle and only 20x makes me unable to point as exactly at the same spot as with my 24x regular cross hair scopes.

So what do you all say?

 

[Sig33]

This interests me also. Anyone have any info on the design idea of an open center reticle?

 

[springer01]

I prefer the open center but with a dot like the MP-8.

 

[VJJPunisher]

ACSS reticle or GTFO

 

[earthquake]

I'm pretty sure the open-center is the same area as a closed center cross hair (someone correct me if I'm wrong)...it just allows you to see what's behind the intersection. I am currently using a Vortex Razor and prefer this. I haven't had any issue so far. I've used an MSR reticle with the floating cross-hair and didn't like it. My ideal reticle though I think, would be the MSR-k, which is an open center with a small floating dot. YMMV.

 

[bp7178]

Depends on magnification, focal plane, and the size of the opening.

I like open centers, with the caveat that they need to be sized appropriately.

 

[LawnMM]

I like it. For example shooting at a dot on a target, I can see the contrasting color of the dot in the center instead of small bits around the crosshair intersection of other reticles.

 

[blksno]

I've been running it for about a week with the H59 in the XRS and I'm a fan.
Doing some load work up at 100 yds on 30x was nice to be able to hold exactly where I wanted and when backed down to 10-15x you don't even notice its open.

 

[timelinex]

I'm starting the think hat what I don't like about it has more to do with lack of. Magnification rather than the open reticle. I'm used to 24 or 25x and 20x is does feel like a step down

 

[brwn bggr]

I like it. For example shooting at a dot on a target, I can see the contrasting color of the dot in the center instead of small bits around the crosshair intersection of other reticles.

I had a Leupold 2.5-8 with a TMR and liked it for the same reason...but as mentioned by bp7178, I don't know if I would care for it with an increase in magnification...

 

[bp7178]

I also had a 2.5-8 with the TMR. At 100 yards the "X" of the target I was shooting would perfectly fill the open space. Made for a very precise hold.

I have a 3-18x with the TMR on the way. I've read a dot was added to the center of the TMR in the Mark 6, which is only apparent at higher magnifications. Leupold doesn't have any documentation online to support that claim, but I'll find out soon enough.

 

[1911fan]

Well, from24/25X is a step down, but I have used my Razor out to 1750 and had no trouble with the open center. (Not that I hit anything, wth a .308 and wind gusting over 20mph, but that's not the point.) I like the EBR-2B reticle for FTR, as I can see the X instead of having it obscured by the crosshairs.
Run it a while, and you'll like it- it's just different from your last scope, that's all.


1911fan

 

[hrfunk]

I've been using a TMR reticle for the past year, and I would say I like it more now than I did at first. It has taken some getting used to, but I think there is some advantage to not having a portion of the target obscured by the reticle. That being said, I think I'm still a little more accurate with the standard reticle, but that could have more to do with the rifle the scope is mounted on than the reticle. It could also be that I'm still just a little more comfortable/used to the standard reticle.

HRF

 

[Luke]

Just throwing it out there - how about zero so your POI is at the tip of one of the stadia?

 

[bp7178]

I wonder if that would be problematic when dialing elevation and holding for wind at longer ranges. I suppose you could account for it in your range card, how much lower you POI was than the horizontal portion of the reticle.

 

[pinsandpitons]

All reticles should have the square defined by the intersection of horizontal and vertical stadia removed. No good reason not to. bp7178 in post #6 said it all. Just my opinion, but you asked for it.

As far as a "top of post zero" is concerned, you're talking about a half stadia thickness difference depending on design. K.I.S.S. and zero the center.

 

[HodgdonExtreme]

I don't much care for it myself, it just feels wrong. I agree with the sentiment that I just don't feel like I can aim *exactly* where I want to. It's like I have to extrapolate the POA all the time.

I have a March F with the FML-1 reticle, which has an open center, but a floating dot inside. I like it quite well.

 

[bp7178]

A 1 mil opening, like on the FML-1, is WAY to big IMO. That covers what, 18" at 500 yards? At that point, you aren't aiming with the cross hair, you're aiming with the dot alone.

The Leupold TMR is listed as having a "center aperture" which for a x16 power scope would be .09 mil. From the diagram, I'm guessing they size it different depending on magnification. That aperture effect is what you're looking for.

http://landsandgroovesblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tmr_subtensions.gif

 

[sib1948]

A 1 mil opening, like on the FML-1, is WAY to big IMO. That covers what, 18" at 500 yards? At that point, you aren't aiming with the cross hair, you're aiming with the dot alone.

My March scopes with FML-1 reticle are great with the open reticle and floating center dot. The dot does not obscure the target. Easily shoot 12" steel rectangle at 900 yards on 40X and see the whole target well. Get whatever reticle you like. There's lots of options provided by most scope manufactures. I don't see what the big issue is. Just get out and shoot.